How people perceive influence of fake news and why it matters

Lee, Taeyoung

doi:10.1080/01463373.2021.1954677

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When others are perceived as susceptible to the influence of made‐up news stories, so‐called “fake news,” support for governmental regulation (Cheng & Chen, 2020) and sanctions (Baek et al, 2019) increases. Perceptions of the influence of fake news, or made‐up news stories, on others even emerged as a stronger predictor for support of fake news regulation when tested against similar concepts such as third‐party perceptions or the influence on oneself (Lee, 2021). Extending these findings from the concept of fake news that was narrowly defined in these studies as made‐up news to a more encompassing notion of misinformation, we expect the following:…”

Section: Perceptions Of the Issue The Policy Is About: The Problem Of...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Support for misinformation regulation on social media: It is the perceived harm of misinformation that matters, not the perceived amount

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responding to harmful content on social media, calls for regulations are coming up to break down the black boxes of social media platforms in handling misinformation. Examples are requiring cooperations with fact‐checkers or the government stepping in. So far, there is a lack of knowledge about predictors of policy attitudes in the context of misinformation besides attitudes toward and perceptions of censorship. Using a two‐wave panel study in Germany at the beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic and eight months in, we examine the role of perceived misinformation exposure, perceived harm of misinformation, and trust in institutions involved in regulating misinformation on public support for misinformation regulation. Results show that trust in media and democracy increase policy support over time. Furthermore, perceived exposure to misinformation does not influence policy attitudes, but perceived harm of misinformation does. We discuss implications for regulating misinformation in the light of our findings.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Section: Perceptions Of the Issue The Policy Is About: The Problem Of...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Support for misinformation regulation on social media: It is the perceived harm of misinformation that matters, not the perceived amount

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the intuitive link between literacy intervention and identifying fake news may not be consistently observed in research (e.g., Jones-Jang et al, 2021), news research has established a link between people’s beliefs about news media, censorship support, and media literacy (Jang & Kim, 2018). People who perceive fake news as a problem report increased support for government regulation of fake news (Lee, 2021), and coverage of fake news erodes overall trust in news media content (Van Duyn & Collier, 2019). Similarly, when content is perceived as propagandistic, people are more likely to support censoring that content (Paek et al, 2008).…”

Section: Predictors Of Censorship Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking Media Instruction, Media Literacy, and Digital Skills to Fake News Beliefs and Censorship Support

Curnalia

2023

Journalism & Mass Communication Educator

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the link between knowledge and skills related to online information consumption and implications for fake news beliefs and support for censorship. The goal of this project was to explore the link between media instruction and students’ news beliefs and attitudes. In particular, survey participants were asked about fake news beliefs, completed digital skill and media literacy assessments, and then completed a measure of their support for government censorship of media. Results indicate that more literate and more skilled users are more skeptical of news media reporting and are more supportive of censorship.

show abstract

“…the presumed media effects on others are greater than on the self) (Chung and Moon, 2016;Davison, 1983). TPE has been adopted to explain cognitive-behavioral phenomena in a series of negative media contexts, including fake news (Lee, 2021), sexual content (Chia et al, 2004) and gambling advertising (Youn et al, 2000). As a typical genre of the undesirable media message, how people perceive misinformation's effect on others and themselves and how the asymmetric perception contributes to subsequent behaviors fall into the horizon of TPE theory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What motivates people to counter misinformation on social media? Unpacking the roles of perceived consequences, third-person perception and social media use

Luo

Zhu

Chen

2023

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeDrawing upon the third-person effect (TPE) theory, this study focuses on two types of misinformation countering intentions (i.e. simple correction and correction with justification). Accordingly, it aims to (1) assess the tenability of the third-person perception (TPP) in the face of misinformation on social media, (2) explore the antecedents of TPP and its relationship with individual-level misinformation countering intentions and (3) examine whether the mediating process is contingent on different social media usage conditions.Design/methodology/approachAn online survey was conducted with 1,000 representative respondents recruited in Mainland China in January 2022 using quota sampling. Paired t-test, multiple linear regression and moderated mediation analysis were employed to examine the proposed hypotheses.FindingsResults bolster the fundamental proposition of TPP that individuals perceive others as more susceptible to social media misinformation than they are. The self-other perceptual bias served as a mediator between the perceived consequence of misinformation and misinformation countering (i.e. simple correction and correction with justification) intentions. Furthermore, intensive social media users were likely to be motivated to counter social media misinformation derived from the indirect mechanism.Originality/valueThe findings provide further evidence for the role of TPE in explaining misinformation countering intention as prosocial and altruistic behavior rather than self-serving behavior. Practically, promising ways to combat rampant misinformation on social media include promoting the prosocial aspects and beneficial outcomes of misinformation countering efforts to others, as well as reconfiguring the strategies by impelling intensive social media users to participate in enacting countering actionsPeer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0507.

show abstract

How people perceive influence of fake news and why it matters

Cited by 18 publications

References 54 publications

Support for misinformation regulation on social media: It is the perceived harm of misinformation that matters, not the perceived amount

Support for misinformation regulation on social media: It is the perceived harm of misinformation that matters, not the perceived amount

Linking Media Instruction, Media Literacy, and Digital Skills to Fake News Beliefs and Censorship Support

What motivates people to counter misinformation on social media? Unpacking the roles of perceived consequences, third-person perception and social media use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About